You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community, you will have access to additional post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), view blogs, respond to polls, upload content, and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free, so please join our community today! Just click here to register. You should turn your Ad Blocker off for this site or certain features may not work properly. If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us by clicking here.

"Stereotypes about personality and gender turn out to be fairly accurate: ... On the binary Myers-Briggs measure, the thinking-feeling breakdown is about 30/70 for women versus 60/40 for men." ~ Bryan Caplan

The problem is the never ending campaign cycle, and the fact that to have any reasonable shot at a higher office one must fall in with one of the parties.

As political parties have gained strength politicians have been increasingly forced to toe the line of the party platform creating a dichotomous political system with no avenue for action outside of the platforms of either Republicans or Democrats.

I am certain, that if it was feasible and there would be no blowback, a large portion of our elected officials would be willing to put good governance in front of the party platform.

Unfortunately, public discourse on politics is so paltry that most just look to the parties to decide their opinions for them, and thus those trying to act outside of the party system have little chance of reaching the public.

I think the bigger problem is the amount of money/lobbying in politics.

For all that we have done, as a civilization, as individuals, the universe is not stable, and nor is any single thing within it. Stars consume themselves, the universe itself rushes apart, and we ourselves are composed of matter in constant flux. Colonies of cells in temporary alliance, replicating and decaying and housed within, an incandescent cloud of electrical impulses. This is reality, this is self knowledge, and the perception of it will, of course, make you dizzy.

Without a stated goal, or any greater level of coherence than we see now, Occupy will remain the drum circle in the park it has been.

Not exactly. The whole Occupy movement is diffused because that was the original goal. What has happened because of that diffusion speaks for itself. A worldwide movement that has further reaches than the Tea Party itself. In other nations(and in America in a lesser degree) currently, people are occupying their stocks and demanding that CEO DON'T get a pay raise just because they are CEO's. People are stopping banks from taking homes. People are stopping big stores from building over a community lot.

If you look at the whole Occupy movement more closely, there are quite a few goals and demands that aren't stated but inferred. What I've found that are very related to one another is:

1: Income inequality
2: Accountability: of Wall Street and K-Street and more transparency in the government system.
3: Community: Take back the city - foreclosed homes, ailing small businesses that are part of that community, police brutality.

Each and every city and country have similar but also differentiated goals than the next city over, but that is because that one city can be quite different from the next. Take Oakland and SF for a striking example. Oakland itself has a huge problem with its militant police force. SF, on the other hand, has less of a police problem and more of a problem about how immigrants are treated (similarly to L.A.)

It is just the MSM don't really talk about these things because they don't go into detail about the whole movement itself or that they work for the very companies that do not want to get into detail about these things.

That, I can only infer you to look up (even on MSM) about how people are blocking banks from taking over foreclosed homes because the family can't pay up.

However, right next to Berkeley, people are trying to stop more land development in an area that used to be filled with grassland and farms. They've actually started a community farm on that tract that runs the risk of being token over because UCBerkeley now owns that land and want to use it for corn research and a list of other "things" (as of now, they're still trying to come up with negotiations on the tract of land.)

As I said, I don't really want to have this discussion, as I've had it a million times, and when you're talking with people who don't know what they're talking about, about a matter that you do know what you're talking about, it's not really enjoyable. It's like Galileo trying to tell people of his time that the Earth revolves around the Sun. They simply lack the knowledge to understand why what he says is true.

Originally Posted by DiscoBiscuit

No one can "know" with any real certainty what would have happened.

In any matter there is uncertainty.

That does not change the fact that, if you actually understood the situation we were facing, and understand the ramifications of not coming in as the lender of last resort, and bailing out the entire financial system, that the damage would have been incredible. Truly unbelievable. And, frankly, I don't think you actually understand it. I doubt you have a strong enough understanding of the financial system and its role in the economy to accurately understand these ramifications.

Originally Posted by DiscoBiscuit

Had I been in charge, I would have let the banks fail, and dissolve the corporate entities, but used bailout $ to insure the toxic assets on those entities ledgers.

By your merely stating this, I cannot help but feel that you have no idea what you're talking about.

I see a lot of what they say about enneagram 8s in your response: you know what you would do, and think everybody else should follow it, but that doesn't mean that what you would do actually has any strong or reasonable connection to reality whatsoever. This is not a personal attack, it is an observation. As you should know, I agree with you on a lot of stuff when it comes to politics, far more than most people. But you simply are wrong about this matter. And it's not simply a matter of "you disagree with me, therefore you're wrong" (as some [ignorant] people have accused me of before). You simply were (and therefore are) not in a position to understand the consequences of not stepping in and doing what we did.

Originally Posted by DiscoBiscuit

Just because I would have let the banks themselves fail doesn't mean I wouldn't take the steps necessary to insure those assets in an effort to limit the financial crunch suffered by the public.

Once again, when I read this, I can't help but feel it's coming from someone who genuinely has no idea what he's talking about. Once again, not an attack, it's just, no one who actually understands these matters would talk in this way. It just isn't in sync with how things work/would have worked had you attempted it. What you think should have been done isn't actually a feasible solution, and it would have led to disaster.

Originally Posted by DiscoBiscuit

The concept of the bailout was fine. The fact that it allowed the worst offenders in the melt down to continue operating was not.

New Century Financial: gone.

Bear Sterns: gone.

Lehman: gone.

Merrill: gone.

Countrywide: gone.

Washington Mutual: gone.

427 banks: gone.

I wouldn't say the worst offenders in the crisis have gotten through unscathed.

Even of those that have survived: look at their stock prices compared to before the crisis.

Bank of America and Citi, the two biggest behemoths before the crisis, now look like the walking dead.

Originally Posted by DiscoBiscuit

Lastly, I would have made sure that the toxic assets supported by the bail out would be transferred back to the private market as quickly as possible.

Once again, this reeks of not knowing what you're talking about.

The private market would've been effectively gone.

I don't think you understand the spillover effects of a complete financial system collapse.

And yes, there would have been a complete collapse of the financial system had they not stepped in as they did.

And, following that complete collapse of the financial system, would have come a devastating collapse of the entire economy.

Look how bad it already was:

And, had we not intervened, it would've been far worse.

The Justice Fighter

INTJ - 6w5 8dw 3w4 sx/so - Neutral Good

"I trust what you are doing though…I just see it a little differently.
I don’t see it as you stepping away from the fire. I see it as the fire directing your course.
No matter how airy or earthy or watery you become... to many of us you will always be...a super nova."